【原】问&答 | 这个句子是不是错了?

有朋友提出这样一个问题:

博主好，有个问题，图片中有个画红线的句子，prick是动词原形，前面的was也是动词，两个动词在一起不是打架了么？

All I wanted to do was prick the bubble and say, “Come on, let’s get some perspective."

这样的句子我们会经常看到. 例如朗文字典例句:

After a week in the mountains all I wanted to do was get back to civilization.

(顺便说句，这是每个支教老师的心声啊！)

简单粗暴的回答就是: 把was后面的成分当成一个名词

[All I wanted to do] was [prick the bubble and say]…

等同于:

All I want is [love].

All the workers want is [a fair wage].

问题是，为什么这个句子不是我们更熟悉的:

All I wanted to do was to prick the bubble and say…

OR

*All I wanted to do was pricking the bubble and say…

这里涉及的一个语法知识是Cleft Sentences, 断裂句

《Collins COBUILD 英语语法大全》对断裂句的定义是:

把焦点集中在句子某个部分的方法之一，是用断裂结构。该结构含动词be, 不是用it做非人称主语，就是用从句、小句，如关系从句、或用to不定式小句作主语或补足语。含这种结构的句子叫断裂句。

这个概念或许陌生，然而这就是我们熟悉的“强调句” “it做形式主语”

例如:

It was Eric who wrote this article.

It was meeting Eric that really started me off on this new line of learning.

强调某人进行的动作，可用what加主语和动词do，再用动词be和带或不带to-的不定式小句组成断裂句。

*"带或不带to-的不定式"也就是说*All I wanted to do was pricking the bubble and say…严格意义上讲是错误的 -- want这个主动词后面应该接to do不定式而不是ing动名词(gerund).

这种What-clause + be的结构称为Wh-cleft或者pseudo-cleft.

例如

I wrote to George immediately.

可以改写为:

What I did was to write to George immediately.

可用all替代what，强调只做了一件事而没有做其他的事。

这种现象被称为All-cleft.

All I did was to write to George immediately.

了解了这些之后我们再回到我们最开始的句子:

All I wanted to do was prick the bubble and say, “Come on, let’s get some perspective."

我们倒推回去,改写为:

I want to prick the bubble and say, “Come on, let’s get some perspective.”

再改写回来:

All I wanted (to do) was (to) prick the bubble and say…

那么我们一直没有解决的问题，was后面的to去哪了?

If we want to emphasize an action, the verb after be usually takes the form that corresponds to the form used in the what-clause:

What I need to do is get some rest.

What they were doing was arguing about which train to take.

也就是说: 断裂句中的主动词(pro-verb)一定要和be后面的动词匹配。

上述的两个例子中, 1)中的主动词是need，是情态动词，因此be后面是省略了to的get. 2)中的主动词是were，因此 be后面用了ing形式的arguing.

我们的句子中的主动词是want, 后面要接to do, 因此它应该是:

All I wanted to do was to prick the bubble and say…

不过另一条规则补充说:

In the past simple and present perfect, we can use the following patterns:

What I did in the end was (to) go home.

What I have done is (to) write a letter to the editor.

也就是说, in this case, the complementiser it is optional.

All I wanted to do was (to) prick the bubble and say…

好吧，啰嗦到这里，应该看懂了吧。或者是更糊涂了:(

---

叶永昌先生在《英语阅读参考手册》中说:

懂的英语语法和句型固然重要，但切不可把他们看作一成不变的东西。有时，固定词组和语法结构只能提供在一般情况下应该如何理解，或者提供几种可能的理解。至于在具体句子和一定上下文中应作如何理解和翻译，还得靠原文的上下文、语义分析及超语言因素进行逻辑判断。

语法书不只是只有薄冰张道真，语法也不是只有考试的时候有用, 语法的研究也不只是什么名词性从句非谓语动词.

《Collins英语语法大全》前言中说: “语法书本该如此编写，但时至今日才得以实现。” -- 可见一本好的语法书是多么的不易。

语法是一个工具, 可以帮助我们科学的系统的分析日常观察到的语言现象，从而帮助我们理解和选择适当的结构来确切的表达自己所要表达的意思 -- 或者说，至少不致于犯大错误； 语法的学习也让我们更加的了解一门语言的特点和难点. 几本好的字典和语法书是英语学习者必备的工具书，学而时习, 越读越新。这样的观察和学习，是有趣的。